User agent detail

Opera/9.80 (Linux sh4; U; ; en; CreNova Build) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1 HbbTV/1.1.1 (;CreNova;CNV001;1.0;1.0; FXM-U2FsdGVkX1/VHpIx4++T5dr9nrGwg2lrTv3h0bv5wA819tf9ZWJf5kbW8psLCFgl-END; en) Presto/2.9.167 Ve

Detected by 8 of 8 providers
As bot detected by 0 of 7

GeneralDeviceBot
ProviderBrowserEngineOSBrandModelTypeIs mobileIs touchIs botNameTypeActions
BrowscapPhp
6011
Opera Linux Linux DesktopDesktop Detail
DonatjUAParser
v0.5.0
Opera 4.0closeclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclosecloseclose Detail
PiwikDeviceDetector
3.5.1
Opera 4.0Presto GNU/Linux CreNovaCNV001tv Detail
SinergiBrowserDetector
6.0.0
Opera 9.80closeLinux closecloseclosecloseclose Detail
UAParser
v3.4.5
HbbTV 1.1.1closeLinux CreNovaCNV001closeclosecloseclose Detail
WhichBrowser
2.0.9
Opera Devices 3.1Presto 2.9.167 CreNovaCNV001televisioncloseclose Detail
Woothee
v1.2.0
Safari 4.0closeclosecloseclosepcclosecloseclose Detail
Wurfl
1.6.4
Opera 12.50closeLinux armv7l SmartTVSmart-TVcloseclose Detail

About this comparison

The primary goal of this project is simple
I wanted to know which user agent parser is the most accurate in each part - device detection, bot detection and so on...

The secondary goal is to provide a source for all user agent parsers to improve their detection based on this results.

You can also improve this further, by suggesting ideas at ThaDafinser/UserAgentParserComparison

The comparison is based on the abstraction by ThaDafinser/UserAgentParser
Comparison created 2016-01-26 16:43:11 | by ThaDafinser